I am not entiirely sure that this is the correct board to post this thread in, and if a moderator feels it should be moved elsewhere I entirely understand.
I am here seeking the advice of men—and women if their husbands have experienced a similar situation—who have undergone adult circumcision, or conversely who have chosen to forego the proceedure. I have a non-retractable foreskin. It is not merely that the foreskin is “tight” as a whole, but the ridged band is not very elastic and is rather small, and the foreskin cannot be retracted at all. I am 22 years old and I have experienced this throughout my entire life. I am also due to be wed next year in May and the pressure of the impending consummation of our marriage has finally driven me to see a Urologist. I am now awaiting my appointment date for the surgery.
Have any of you men been through this situation yourselves? Are there any that have but have used alternative therapies rather than surgery? As you may imagine, the thought of a doctor soon taking a knife to me is not a wholly comforting idea, and I am a tad worried.
I am absolutely decided on my medical course. The alternative therapies have been ruled out and I’m just waiting for the letter from my surgeon giving me a date. I do not want medical advice. Simply the experiences of others, and how they dealt with it in their lives.
I had it done for hygienic (i.e., completely non-religious) reasons in the 1970s while my wife was pregnant with our second child. The surgeon was one of the GPs at the overseas USAF base where I was stationed, assisted by the base orthodontist, a practicing Jew. Complete heal-up time was about six weeks, and the results were completely satisfactory. As one of a relatively few adult males who have been sexually active both pre- and post-op, my own experience is that post-op is much better.
Agree with Mulligan. They can normally simply make a small incision to loosen the prepuce without the need to amputate the most sensitive and innervated part of the male organ. You should really check with a doctor from Europe, Canada, Asia, or Australia for more complete information though, as the first instinct of American doctors tends to be to cut cut cut, as that is really all they know about it sadly.
My husband and both our sons were circumcised as newborns, so I can’t comment other than to say I like my husband the way he is, and neither of our sons has had any medical problems in that area, plus the one who is past puberty has not masturbated, which I know can be prompted by irritations under the foreskin. so IMO it’s all good. Plus God would never have made the Jews do it if He did not consider it beneficial.
A friend of mine had it done during college due to phimosis (which sounds like what you’re describing as well). We never talked too much about it, but what he did say was that although the sexual sensation was never the same, he did feel more comfortable with himself and his body, and that it improved his self-esteem (he was born in Europe, but moved to the US where uncircumcised penises are not as common). That’s just one anecdote though, and I’m sure that every man who has done this has a different experience.
I must say I find it strange that you seem to be so aware of your son’s masturbation practices or lack thereof, but you also clearly lack a good deal of knowledge about the normal intact penis. The idea that a male prepuce gets “irritations” under it that cause masturbation is as odd as the notion that the female prepuce would get irritations under it that would lead to girls doing the same.
In any event, calling it the same thing as the ancient Hebrews called their rite doesn’t make if the same. The modern American medicalized circumcision is far more extensive an amputation with much greater amounts of tissue being lost. It bears almost no resemblance to the OT practice of Abraham, which was a tiny cut on the very tip of the prepuce and to most Americans would be indistinguishable from an intact penis. Please read up on the topic.
Circumcision (in males) is the surgical removal of the foreskin, not the glans. The glans is the most sensitive and innervated part of the male organ. The foreskin is simply that – skin. We’re born with it because, prior to the invention of clothes, having one’s glans exposed to every little breeze would get a little distracting.
Modern circumcision is NOT an amputation, and your continued use of this term is disingenuous. And OT descriptions of needing days to heal from circumcision bely your claim that it was only a tiny cut.
JorduSpeaks is correct. Blacksword, it is you that needs to read up on the topic.
I’ve never had ‘the conversation’ with my sons, but my husband has. When they were small, he taught both our boys they can only hold their penises at the very base, for toilet purposes. Later he explained that ‘the end part’ is for making babies and can only be touched by their future wives. And later, when they learned the facts of life, he taught them in a Catholic context, including the story of Onan’s fate and the perils of masturbation.
Our eldest boy hit puberty last year. After his first ‘wet dream’ he asked my husband for help in preventing further ones as he recognized the sanctity of his seed. He also confided that he stopped dating a girl from our church when she told him she masturbated, and saw no harm in it for girls. I’m hoping he remains this strong.
As for what you say about circumcision, I don’t know how you can be sure how the procedure was done more than 2000 years ago. All I can say is that our pediatrician, who circumcised both our sons, was Jewish, and his recommendation was to cut off as much skin as possible because the HPV virus is harbored by any remaining foreskin or the band underneath and also if a circumcision is done too loosely the skin can fuse with the glans, which can cause complications requiring surgery. My husband was told in the military that he had a tight circumcision, but our sons’ look to me a lot tighter, so I think Jews are inclined to do it that way.
Please see the Sorrells study, the most comprehensive to date on sensitivity in intact v. Circumsized penises. It is an objective fact that you are wrong. The foreskin contains around 20,000 nerves, the entire rest of the penis about 8,000. It contains numerous specialized structures and is not “just skin”. You are as an objective matter of settled medical knowledge incorrect.
I’m sorry, I think you are confused. Circumcision is absolutely an amputation, that’s the very definition of what it is. “Amputate” means “to cut off, especially by surgery”…circumcision is the cutting off of the foreskin, i.e., the amputation of this part of the penis. And yes, the small cut used in the original OT rite was the amputation, again, cutting off of, the very tip of the foreskin, that part of it that extended past the glans. This left all the rest of it there and intact, covering the glans itself. But of course this took a few days to heal. It is in no way disingenuous to call it what it simply is: the amputation of the foreskin, that’s the MEDICAL definition of what it is.:shrug:
The Brit Malah and Brit Pariah are different, we know how Jews prior to the Second Century A.D. did it because it is in recorded history, and also talked about in the Book of Macabees to some extent. Jews began stretching the ends of their prepuce to extend further to “blend in” with Greek society, where being naked around other was common, and thus in the Second Century A.D. a much more extensive cutting was introduced to make sure they couldn’t blend in anymore. See this for more information: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_male_circumcision. Again, this is just simply known history, so yes, Jesus and other first Century Jews and before would have had no familiarity with the extent of the procedure that is commonly done today in American hospitals.